重庆小面协会发声|小面协会|李勇|重庆市

近日，河南省南阳市一家名为“渝见小面”的店铺，遭上市公司“遇见小面”以商标侵权为由起诉，索赔七八千元，引发广泛关注。（）

A trademark dispute between Guangzhou Xiao Noodles Catering Management Co Ltd (trading as "Xiao Noodles"), better known as "Meet Noodles" (Yujian Xiaomian), and a small family-run noodle shop named "Yujian Xiaomian" in Nanyang, Henan province, has ignited widespread debate over the boundaries of trademark protection and the rights of small businesses.

6月15日凌晨，@遇见小面发布《致渝见小面的一封信》。创始人宋奇称，向南阳渝见小面的老板和老板娘诚挚道歉，并表示决定将已注册的第35类“渝见小面”商标无偿赠予南阳渝见小面的老板和老板娘，可以不用改换招牌而放心使用。

同日，“渝见小面”老板李勇在抖音账号发布《致遇见小面宋总及各界朋友的一封信》。针对宋奇“赠送商标”一事，李勇回应：您的品牌我觉得可以赠送小面行业，造福更多合法合规的小商户。

In an open letter posted early Monday, Song Qi, founder of Meet Noodles, acknowledged the trademark dispute as a "major management error" that deviated from the company's values. He said he would adopt a more careful approach to trademark protection. He also offered to transfer the company's Class 35 trademark for "Yujian Xiaomian" to the Nanyang shop free of charge, so they could keep their name, and offered to help them apply for the Class 43 trademark if needed.

Later that day, Li Yong, who runs the noodle shop "Yujian Xiaomian", responded on Douyin. He said he did not personally accept the apology, as it could not undo the distress his family had suffered, but he accepted it on behalf of the industry to avoid further escalation. On Song's offer to transfer the trademark, Li suggested donating it to the entire noodle industry to benefit small, law-abiding operators.

6月16日，针对上述事件，重庆市小面协会发布“关于规范行业商标维权、共建良性营商生态的倡议”。

倡议提到，“渝”为重庆地域行政区划简称，“小面”属于餐饮通用商品名称，二者均属于公共资源，不具备商标独占权属，业内主体可依规善意、合理使用。重庆小面是承载巴渝民俗文脉的地域公共品牌，归属全体行业从业者，倡导全行业共享，不支持单一企业独家垄断。

协会建议相关部门进一步细化裁判与适用标准，明晰行为界定边界。一方面甄别恶意侵权、仿冒品牌等行为，另一方面认可小微商户对地域文化符号、品类名称的正常使用，兼顾品牌方知识产权与小微经营主体的合法权益。

On Tuesday, the Chongqing Noodle Restaurants Association issued a formal statement in response to the dispute. The association argued that "Yu", as the official abbreviation for Chongqing, and "xiaomian" (small noodles), a generic term for noodle dishes, are both public resources. As such, they should not be subject to exclusive trademark claims. The association stated its opposition to the monopolization of these terms by any single enterprise.

While the association affirmed its support for lawful trademark protection, it called on authorities to further refine the criteria for adjudicating such cases. It urged a distinction to be drawn between malicious infringement and the good-faith use of regional cultural symbols and category names by small merchants. The association also expressed its approval of the decision to withdraw the lawsuit, which it said balances legal principle with public sentiment and serves the broader interests of the industry.